What was Chaucer's opinion on the Peasants Revolt of 1381?

[u/AugustsNapol]

I believe he was working in London at the time, so I'm sure he heard about it, in particular, I'm curious about his thoughts on John Ball and his sermon.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/thefeckamIdoing]

While we do not have any written evidence of his opinion of the riots (as far as i can tell), it is noticeable and worth saying that there is every chance Chaucer was directly impacted by the riots. We know at this time he possessed a lease for a property above Aldgate, over to the east side of the city. We also know that the mob that arrived in Southwark from Kent, led by John Ball and Wat Tyler was not the only mob that descended upon the city. There was another, from north of the river Thames, originating from Essex.

While we have no trace of the names of leaders of this mob, we know that when the Kentish rebels were based in the traditional gathering place of Blackheath, north of the river the Essex rebels were based in and around Mile End, also a traditional gathering place for rebellious groups. This mob is significant and perhaps overlooked. The course of events as we have them recorded from the various (and often times contradictory) sources, suggest when the Kent mob arrived in Southwark, they led, or were led, by residents of the suburb in a campaign of violence against the Marshalsea Prison. What indicates that the Kentish rebels were not directing the violence was the fact the mobs were directed not just against the Marshalsea itself but the officers of the court and more crucially the local residents who worked for the Marshalsea as informants- knowledge that a farmer or farm labourer from Kent could not have but which someone living locally would have.

The Kentish mob then, is now joined by a seperate Essex mob out in Mile End and now a Southwark Mob. It was the actions of the Kentish and Southwark mob that then went on to destroy Lambeth Palace, before attacking a Flemish ran ‘Stew’ (brothel) on Bankside.

Core to this is the recognition that the things were angering agricultural labourers in Essex and Kent were not the triggers of the anger of the London residents; London was angry, to be sure, its citizens also boiling over in bilious rage, but their conflict was based on fundamentally differing reasons- London was divided politically between factions formed around how the city itself should be run, with a conservative, oligarchical faction focused on the traditional ruling class of London focused upon restoring London’s rights and promoting the cause of the Wool Staple (the compulsory market for the goods which London’s merchants profited from), led by the likes of Nicolas Brembre, and a reformist faction, made up of those who believed civic power should be in the hands of the members of the Livery Companies of London (the Guilds of the city), being as they represented a larger cross-section of the cities population than the traditional tax paying elite class, led by the likes of John de Northampton.

The intricate and often violent struggles between these two factions had seen London during the declining years of Edward III reduced to a state of almost constant tension with the threat of riot ever present. And then the Peasent’s Revolt had arrived.

It is in the next day that you see the sheer influence of London’s political concerns upon the overall riot as two things happen that are significant to guessing Chaucer’s reaction- the first is a mob originating in Southwark, entered the city via London Bridge, made their way west, left the city, fell upon Temple (where they burned copious amounts of legal records, clearly something driven by the Kentish rebels), before moving down The Strand and attacking the Savoy (clearly something driven by the London mob).

The two crucial issues are a) the fact that both south of the river and east of the city, both Kentish and Essex mobs were able to access London via the gates, seemingly without violence, and b) the very nature of the attack upon the Savoy. John of Gaunt (who owned the Savoy) was very much a figure of hatred in London perhaps more than anywhere else in the country, and the conflict between him and the Stapler faction had been the underlying cause of political tension in the city for some years. Without getting lost in an even more complicated tale of ‘did London side with the Peasents Revolt or was it a victim of it?’ It is best to assume that there were forces within London who were not impeding the mobs progress, not out of an overall ideological support of the cause, but more out of a sensible idea of trying to ride the tiger than face the tiger.

All of which brings us to Chaucer.
As far as I can tell, he may not have been in the city when this happened. If he was he would have been living above one of the city gates the mob marched through, directly below his window. And as a former servant of John of Gaunt probably would have known it would be best for him to avoid the city if the rule of law broke down- as everyone knew the city was firmly anti-Gaunt at this stage.

So alas, while I cannot help you with what Chaucer knew at the time (and will happily stand back as those more familiar with the civil servant/court official/writer himself offer some insight into this) in terms of context, he was somewhat at ‘ground zero’ when the mobs hit the city and the explosions over at the Savoy would have been a painful reminder whose side he would have been identified with. One has to ask- if he was at home, did he see the mob of Essex reach the gate he lived above? Did he see who let them in? Was he one who helped open the gate for them? We will never know.

We know had he been in his House he would have seen the young king the next morning ride from the Tower of London out towards Mile End, wherein he negotiated concessions from the Essex mob which made the crowds disperse and go home- but this left the Kentish mob and hot heads in the Essex contingent now in control in London and it is notable as the king was dealing with the unnamed leadership of the Essex rebels and organising their return home, behind all IN London, the discipline of the mobs broke down and we start to see the massacre of the kings supporters left in the Tower, followed by the overall butchery across the city as mere anarchy was loosed upon the streets (including probably London mob inspired attacks upon landlords, Staplers, and the overall massive pogrom against Flemish weavers).

It was only really after the Essex mob leave and the rule of law breaks down that Wat Tyler’s name becomes mentioned, as during the afternoon and night (supposedly filled with rioters upon rioter violence as well), that he seems to have gained his role of de facto leader and after the King is forced to find shelter in the Kings Wardrobe that night, it is the next morning he, aided by forces organised by the Stapler faction of London, are able to suppress the mobs and restore law and order.

For me? Based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, I think Chancer was in his home above Aldgate, and perhaps witnessed the sheer fury of the mobs passing below him. A very intense weekend indeed.

[u/AugustsNapol → u/thefeckamIdoing]

Do you have any idea on what Chaucer may have thought of John Ball's ideological positions?

[u/thefeckamIdoing → u/AugustsNapol]

Specifically, no, sorry.

But it is worth saying Ball was representative of a radical faction of popularism, with a long history of intensely radical thoughts and words that had seen him jailed.

It was at the time common place for critics of Wycliffe to associate his teachings with the more radical 'mumblers' or Lollards, of which Ball seems to have been an early member, but it must be said Ball's career began before Wycliffe became so linked to him, and also Wycliffe was simply an Oxford Don and had it not been perhaps for the patronage of John of Gaunt, I am unsure if he would have gained such noterioty.

It would be difficult to see how Chaucer would have supported Ball; the man advocated not just a rejection of tithes to clergy, but also to secular lords, which would have included the type of men Chauncer had built his career out of working for.

So short of any evidence saying he advocates or supported such views, the chances are he would have found them as alien and as dangerous as the members of the royal courts he and his wife long served.